There is, of course, an institutional link between group survival and morality. If a group can trust its own members; if it can instill courage and kindliness and mutual sympathy among its members; if it can make of them moral individuals, at least toward one another, it is more likely to survive than a group which cannot do this. The greatest danger to a group, of course, is the loss of its final unities. An example is a democracy which permits controversy, but only within a mutually accepted context of rules. Without the final unity there is only the jungle. A group which thinks of itself as a whole, and works together, because of the efficiency of its effort, is more likely to be successful than another group, even one more morally oriented. Moralities may differ, though they do not differ as much as might be expected, either because of genetic code or institutionally necessary conditions, but there must be a morality, of one sort or another. Without the morality there is no tribe, no state, no world.

Now what of those elements in human beings, partly exploitative, partly sadistic, partly masochistic, which are a part of the human being?

These traits may at one time have had survival value. If not, they were perhaps concomitants of traits with survival value, exploitativeness perhaps with acquisitiveness, sadism with aggressiveness, masochism with submission to authority. Or, indeed, such traits might be, in effect, random traits with no essential connection whatsoever with survival. For example, blue eyes and blond hair are often genetically linked, but there is, presumably, no important survival value in this linkage. There might, of course, be a sexual value, aesthetically, in such a linkage. That is the second great dynamic of evolution, sexual selection. Perhaps individuals with such traits, women, were more often sought, captured or purchased.